Happy Mother's Day weekend to all of you who are, or who have, mothers.
(I think that covers everybody.)
I couldn't think of a better way to start this weekend than with a quiz on pregnancy discrimination, lactation accommodation, "family discrimination," and the Family and Medical Leave Act. As always, answers are at the end of each question.
Ready? Here we go!
Question 1: By definition, an employer cannot discriminate based on pregnancy after the baby is born.
A. Correct. "Pregnancy" is obviously limited to the nine months (more or less) of gestation. Discrimination that occurs afterward cannot be based on pregnancy, although it may be unlawful for some other reason.
B. Incorrect. "Pregnancy" also includes the postpartum period. (Roughly six weeks after childbirth, assuming no complications.)
C. Incorrect. Courts have interpreted "pregnancy" to include not only gestation and childbirth (and postpartum period), but also a period of a few months after the baby is born. Moreover, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says that discrimination based on lactation is a form of "pregnancy discrimination."
ANSWER: C. Employers, treat those new moms right! For a long time.
Question 2: By definition, an employer cannot discriminate based on pregnancy before the woman actually conceives.
A. Correct. How can an employer discriminate based on pregnancy when the woman isn't even pregnant? This quiz is stupid.
B. Correct. Although the answer to Question 1 was C, all of those protections are tied to actual physiological changes related to gestation, childbirth, the postpartum period, and lactation. There are no physical changes that occur before a women becomes pregnant, so there is no need for legal protection before conception.
C. Incorrect. In the view of the EEOC and many courts, the pregnancy discrimination laws encompass gestation, childbirth, the postpartum period, and lactation, but they also include attempts to conceive (e.g., fertility treatments), and attempts to avoid conception (e.g., use of contraceptives). They also include miscarriages and elective abortions.
D. Incorrect. Women are protected from everything. Guys just can't get a break.
ANSWER: C again!
Question 3: The Nursing Mothers Act, which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers to provide unpaid "lactation breaks" and related accommodations in certain circumstances, does not apply to FLSA-exempt employees.
A. True.
B. False.
ANSWER: True. The NMA applies only to non-exempt employees. Of course, employers should provide "lactation accommodation" to exempt employees, too (in addition to being the right thing to do, there could also be a "pregnancy" discrimination issue if they don't), and exempt employees cannot be docked for that time.
Question 4: An employer will be in compliance with the Nursing Mothers Act if it provides non-exempt employees with two 20-minute "lactation breaks" per eight-hour shift.
A. Correct. That is what is required under the law.
B. Correct. Although the NMA does not specify the number of breaks or amount of time that should be provided, two 20-minute breaks in an eight-hour shift would create a "safe harbor" for employers that should shield them from any claims.
C. Incorrect. The NMA requires three 20-minute breaks in an eight-hour shift, not two.
D. Incorrect. The number and duration of breaks is based on the needs of the mother. When the baby is young, the mother may need breaks about every 2 hours. The frequency will decrease as the child gets older. The length of the breaks is not specified in the law, but it should be enough time for the mother to prepare to express milk, to express the milk, and to clean up afterward. That may or may not be 20 minutes. In addition, the employer has to provide a private location (with a lock) that isn't a bathroom, a place for the mother to store her milk, and a flat surface on which she can place a breast pump.
ANSWER: D.
Question 5: A woman who is denied a promotion because she has school-age kids or an elderly parent will not have a valid pregnancy discrimination claim.
A. True
B. False
ANSWER: True. But even though she won't have a valid discrimination claim based on pregnancy, that's not to say she wouldn't have a valid discrimination claim of some other sort. She might be able to claim "regular" sex discrimination if the employer promoted male employees without regard to the ages of their kids or parents. In other words, if the woman can show that the employer declined to select her because of stereotypes about women's caregiving responsibilities and ability to do the job, then that would still be unlawful.
Question 6: For what type of "baby-related leave" do the following provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act apply: (1) all leave must be taken in one year, (2) reduced schedule/intermittent leave are not available unless the employer consents, and (3) if both spouses are employed by the same employer, they are entitled to only an "aggregated" 12 weeks of leave?
A. Prenatal care, childbirth, the postpartum period, and enjoying the baby
B. Childbirth, the postpartum period, and enjoying the baby
C. Enjoying the baby
D. None of the above
ANSWER: C. Time off for prenatal care, childbirth, and recovery from childbirth would all qualify as "serious health condition" leave under the FMLA. That means the leave can be taken whenever the employee needs it, and it can be taken on an intermittent or reduced schedule basis. If both spouses are employed by the employer, and the husband is "needed to care for" his wife's serious health condition, then the husband and wife would each be entitled to a full 12 weeks of FMLA leave. But time off just to "bond" with the baby is subject to these limitations. My general practice is to let the "bonding" time kick in six weeks postpartum, unless there were complications with the labor and delivery that might have made the "medical recovery" period longer than six weeks.
Question 7: Jack and Jill both work for you. They are not married. Jill becomes pregnant by Jack. Jill has a prenatal appointment and requests FMLA leave for the visit, which you approve. Jack also requests FMLA leave and gives you a medical certification signed by Jill's obstetrician saying that Jack is "needed to care for" Jill on her visit. Is Jack entitled to FMLA leave for this purpose?
A. Yes, because he has presented a valid medical certification from Jill's health care provider.
B. No, because he is not Jill's spouse, parent, or child.
ANSWER: B. Jack would be entitled to FMLA leave for the baby's serious health condition because he is the baby's father. But he is not entitled to FMLA leave for Jill because they don't have a relationship that is covered under the law. (Of course, you can allow Jack to go to the appointment out of the goodness of your heart, but you're not legally required to do it.)
HOW'DJA DO?
6-7 correct: You are one smart mother!
3-5 correct: Pretty good, but you could do so much more if you just applied yourself.
0-2 correct: Well, anyway, your mother loves you.
Happy Mother's Day to you all!
Image Credits: From Flickr, Creative Commons license. Girls' night in by monkeywing; Barbie and baby by RomitaGirl67; Whistler's Mother with bouquet by sammydavisdog; scolding mother by CircaSassy.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010